Author Topic: hmmm hate or not?  (Read 12661 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AtomicClucker

  • 28
  • Runnin' from Trebs
This article is just proof that our current politicians have as much hold on reality as a properly lubed pig at a country fair during the hog grabbing contest.

At this current rate, we might as well elect hamsters to fill political positions.
Blame Blue Planet for my Freespace2 addiction.

 
There was a horse that once held an important political office. He apperently did quite well...

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Yes I see the error in my ways, I stand corrected.

The judge is wrong in saying he would not appoint someone for the sake of "being" muslim, and is being bigoted on that account. Had he simply said that he would not "care" for the religion of the person in question, "as long as" said person would never try to enforce sharia law over US law, he would have been fine.

As it is, he's probably even being anti-constitutional by saying that, which is somewhat funny and sad.

All the other things he is saying are real, though, and cause for concern.


About the sharia law in UK, I think you should have simply googled, as I did, and you'll find in the first links all the data you required. Why do people keep doing this? Here, I hope the times online is a good source for you:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Quote
Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.

Exactly the point I made earlier.

How is this any different?


I will point out that I'm not particularly in favour of the Sharia courts. It's just that I'm not in favour of the Jewish ones either. What I'm against is the singling out of Muslims for doing what Jews have been doing for ages.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Well it probably has to do with the fact that sharia law is a thousand times more barbaric than the jewish courts.

Want to guess what is the penalty for apostasy?

 
Well it probably has to do with the fact that sharia law is a thousand times more barbaric than the jewish courts.

Explain. Especially the Jewish court part, which apperently allow the use of white phosperous, bulldozers, 5.56 and 7.62 bullets, and various other painfull punishments on palestinians which might potentially have a possible connection to the missile launch that did or did not happen and did or did not caused an undetermined amount of potential damage.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Well it probably has to do with the fact that sharia law is a thousand times more barbaric than the jewish courts.

Want to guess what is the penalty for apostasy?

If you're claiming that the penalty is going to be carried out in the UK then I really don't know what to say that could possibly change your blinkered view of the world. And if you're not, then what the **** are you claiming?
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
Sharia Law doesn't simply cover the religious aspects of law, it also covers things like Financial agreements, Contract law and Litigation.

In the UK Sharia Law in those respects can be used, on the provision it doesn't break the law of the land, but the religious aspects are illegal, you cannot stone a woman to death for adultery etc. Exactly the same rules are applied to Jewish, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist or any other relgious group.

With regards to this man's statements, is he then admitting that the opinion of the majority no longer count for anything? That a single person in authority can push through laws against the will of the majority of the country? Seems to me that if America is truly a Democracy, the fact that someone has an opinion of America's future that is different to other people (assuming this is even the case) shouldn't even be an issue, the Majority will decide.

Edit: I also consider it ironic to hear a Right Wing Politican in America concerned about someone putting their Church ahead of the Constitution...
« Last Edit: March 29, 2011, 08:09:11 am by Flipside »

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Well it probably has to do with the fact that sharia law is a thousand times more barbaric than the jewish courts.

Want to guess what is the penalty for apostasy?

If you're claiming that the penalty is going to be carried out in the UK then I really don't know what to say that could possibly change your blinkered view of the world. And if you're not, then what the **** are you claiming?

So you're saying that it's okay for the sharia law to be inforced in the UK, because it won't be?

Sincerely sometimes I don't understand people's points.

 
No, he's saying that the Sharia's punishment for apostasy won't be carried out in the UK.

  

Offline zookeeper

  • *knock knock* Who's there? Poe. Poe who?
  • 210
Well it probably has to do with the fact that sharia law is a thousand times more barbaric than the jewish courts.

Want to guess what is the penalty for apostasy?

If you're claiming that the penalty is going to be carried out in the UK then I really don't know what to say that could possibly change your blinkered view of the world. And if you're not, then what the **** are you claiming?

So you're saying that it's okay for the sharia law to be inforced in the UK, because it won't be?

Sincerely sometimes I don't understand people's points.

Because you're using the barbarism of sharia law as a reason to be more concerned about sharia law in the UK than the jewish courts, then that can only mean that you believe that sharia law in the UK includes the obviously barbaric aspects of sharia law (like killing apostates). If you don't believe that then you wouldn't have brought up apostasy in the first place, because it wouldn't be relevant. And quite obviously if you think that sharia law in the UK in this context means that killing of apostates is going to be sanctioned then you must be very misguided or have a pretty blinkered view of the world. Right?

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
The example exists to show you the level of barbarism that is embebbed in the spirit of said law. If your point is that the tamer these laws are abided the better, then you are making the assymptotic point that they shouldn't be at all. I think this is logically obvious.

This also is very clear when people debate about the "evilnessness" of islam. I often say, "islam is bad, period", and people reply to me, "but look not all the people take their own religion that seriously", and I just have my point proven. Consider someone saying "But look not all the people take not-being-racist that seriously". Why is the former point made so often and the latter point is utterly ridiculous?



About the "majority" issue, I kind of agree with the notion that the majority *should not* make all the rules we have, for the obvious reason of minority issues being stampeded due to the majority's carelessness. All of the "american founders" agreed to this, and that's why the US even has a constitution.

 

Offline Flipside

  • əp!sd!l£
  • 212
Well, strictly speaking under Abrahamic law you can be stoned to death for growing different crops in adjacent fields, obviously, that wouldn't be tolerated in these countries either. Like Sharia Law, it's down to the people implementing those rules and deciding which are compatible with the society it is used in and which are not. People throw stones at abortion doctors or homosexuals in certain areas of America, God says that's ok (at least according to them), Federal Law not so much.

It's the same in the UK, Sharia Law is a vast body of law, and only that which is compatible with the current British Law can be enforced, the Law of the Land takes precedence.

 
... governments banning spinnerets or face covering...

Woops, my bad, I was banging my head against the wall when I realized my mistake. :) But seriously, the guy is referring to Europe, which is lumping France and Switzerland into a single group, along with the UK.

@Luis Dias The problem with what the guy is saying, in my view, is that he's excluding the possibility that a Muslim can hold simply because of who they are. Whether or not one religion's law is worse than the other is besides the point. We allow Christians into power without worrying too much about them putting some sort of religious law into effect. This guy presumes that a Christian, presumably because of the religion, is safer than putting a Muslim because one would impose his religion on others, while the other would not.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Well, strictly speaking under Abrahamic law you can be stoned to death for growing different crops in adjacent fields, obviously, that wouldn't be tolerated in these countries either. Like Sharia Law, it's down to the people implementing those rules and deciding which are compatible with the society it is used in and which are not. People throw stones at abortion doctors or homosexuals in certain areas of America, God says that's ok (at least according to them), Federal Law not so much.

Exactly the point I was going to make.

So why are Muslims being singled out as being barbaric unless it's for bigoted reasons?
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
Yeah, Bob I conceded and agreed with that point too.

Quote
So why are Muslims being singled out as being barbaric unless it's for bigoted reasons?

I've yet to be convinced that muslimhood is just as "tamed" as christianity. All the evidence I've been reading for the last ten years points pretty much to the contrary.

 

Offline Nuclear1

  • 211
The reason you think Islam isn't 'tamed' is because the majority of its followers live in the Middle East or Southeast Asia, regions not exactly known for their stability.

Western Christianity can afford to be 'tame' because the majority of its followers live in relative comfort, and have no real need to be savage.  But even at that, Christians still kill abortion doctors and Christians still commit hate crimes against Muslims in the West.

In other words, it's not the religion that's savage, it's the followers.
Spoon - I stand in awe by your flawless fredding. Truely, never before have I witnessed such magnificant display of beamz.
Axem -  I don't know what I'll do with my life now. Maybe I'll become a Nun, or take up Macrame. But where ever I go... I will remember you!
Axem - Sorry to post again when I said I was leaving for good, but something was nagging me. I don't want to say it in a way that shames the campaign but I think we can all agree it is actually.. incomplete. It is missing... Voice Acting.
Quanto - I for one would love to lend my beautiful singing voice into this wholesome project.
Nuclear1 - I want a duet.
AndrewofDoom - Make it a trio!

 

Offline Luis Dias

  • 211
The reason you think Islam isn't 'tamed' is because the majority of its followers live in the Middle East or Southeast Asia, regions not exactly known for their stability.

No. It's because immigrants (and keep in mind that I have no personal immigrancy issues, I am a portuguese who knows damned well how it is like to be an emigrant) do not exactly "conform" to the vision of a secular democracy with human rights meaning that women shouldn't be degraded, etc., and constitute "islands" of muslimhood right inside secular countries.

A priori, I think this is an excelent idea, since it exposes these people to other points of view, almost necessarily, and that confrontation will "tame their barbaric views", at least to tolerable levels, until new generations come, etc.

Problem is, if you incentivate their own ghetization (?), like, say, creating a different set of laws just for muslims, create religious schools where they get the usual "they say the world is 4.5 billion years old and you are obliged to answer this in the tests but we know better" ridiculous ****fest, and all and all confine the new generations to a whole muslim experience, we are not creating a tolerant, "multicultural", diverse society. We are fragmenting it to pieces and shattering societies.

In an ironic way, these religious groups are doing to themselves what some tiranies did to other religious groups in the past: confine themselves.

And it should be no surprise that this actually works.

Quote
Western Christianity can afford to be 'tame' because the majority of its followers live in relative comfort, and have no real need to be savage.  But even at that, Christians still kill abortion doctors and Christians still commit hate crimes against Muslims in the West.

This is an exclusively american problem. It exists, but I don't think saying "christianity" solves it per se.

Quote
In other words, it's not the religion that's savage, it's the followers.

What a cop out. People are always savage. And people will act differently according to their beliefs and practices. Religion is one of said beliefs and practices and is very important.

 

Offline Mars

  • I have no originality
  • 211
  • Attempting unreasonable levels of reasonable
I do think that Islam generally promotes violence, but I think Christianity, by in large, does too.

The fact is, portions of both religions promote everything up to and including genocide, and utter control of women. They have no place in the civilized world, but here's the thing - there's nothing that says that's what believers of these religions believe. It's hard to completely discriminate against literally billions of people on that basis. Instead you need to look at the individual.


Group judging very rarely works. The larger the population you're trying to judge, the less accurate it will be.

 

Offline Nuclear1

  • 211
No. It's because immigrants (and keep in mind that I have no personal immigrancy issues, I am a portuguese who knows damned well how it is like to be an emigrant) do not exactly "conform" to the vision of a secular democracy with human rights meaning that women shouldn't be degraded, etc., and constitute "islands" of muslimhood right inside secular countries.
The immigrant problem, we've had this problem in the West before.

First it was the Catholics, then the Irish, then the Chinese...children of immigrants do become part of society. 

Quote
Problem is, if you incentivate their own ghetization (?), like, say, creating a different set of laws just for muslims, create religious schools where they get the usual "they say the world is 4.5 billion years old and you are obliged to answer this in the tests but we know better" ridiculous ****fest, and all and all confine the new generations to a whole muslim experience, we are not creating a tolerant, "multicultural", diverse society. We are fragmenting it to pieces and shattering societies.
Private Christian schools exist that do the same thing.  You just explained the entire problem behind fundamentalist Christianity in America.

The way you solve this problem is expose that group to secular ideas that counter the backwards beliefs of a Young Earth.  The way the Republicans like to do it with Muslims though, is to deride them all as backwards extremists who can't contribute to society, and make no effort to integrate them peacefully.

And don't you think labeling an entire group as savage or disruptive does much for merging that group into society?  If anything, it forces that group to isolate themselves and defend themselves against what they view as a hostile society.

Quote
In an ironic way, these religious groups are doing to themselves what some tiranies did to other religious groups in the past: confine themselves.
Tyrannical measures, like, say, racially profiling Muslims and assuming that every Muslim is in favor of enforcing Sharia law on the rest of their countrymen.

Quote
What a cop out. People are always savage. And people will act differently according to their beliefs and practices. Religion is one of said beliefs and practices and is very important.
Alright, so tell me, who's more prone to extremism, a poor unemployed young man from Riyadh, or an accounting major from Dearborn?

Demagoguery is a major factor in fomenting extremism among religious groups.  For the most part, that doesn't exist in a significant way among American Muslims.  If it does exist, it exists as a defensive mechanism against society's persecution of Muslims.  It's a self-fulfilling prophecy:  the more you isolate a group of people, the more likely they are to turn to extreme measures to defend themselves. 

Besides, if you have a stable and comfortable lifestyle, and you don't feel like you're being singled-out for who you are, you're less likely to feel resentment against the people doing it.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2011, 08:06:51 pm by Nuclear1 »
Spoon - I stand in awe by your flawless fredding. Truely, never before have I witnessed such magnificant display of beamz.
Axem -  I don't know what I'll do with my life now. Maybe I'll become a Nun, or take up Macrame. But where ever I go... I will remember you!
Axem - Sorry to post again when I said I was leaving for good, but something was nagging me. I don't want to say it in a way that shames the campaign but I think we can all agree it is actually.. incomplete. It is missing... Voice Acting.
Quanto - I for one would love to lend my beautiful singing voice into this wholesome project.
Nuclear1 - I want a duet.
AndrewofDoom - Make it a trio!